Daley Bows Out: Rahm's Turn?

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley announced today he won't seek re-election.

Rahm Emanuel, Compromiser-in-Chief, has said he's interested in the job. He doesn't see eye-to-eye with Obama's inner circle of advisers and it's long been rumored he only planned to stay with Obama through the mid-term elections anyway.

Run, Rahm, Run. Obama needs a new Chief of Staff -- one who's more concerned with a bill's details than capitulating on principles to get it passed. From the New York Times March, 2010 profile on Rahm:

Emanuel is far less concerned about the details of a bill than the ability to get it passed.

Please, Chicago, take him off our hands.

< Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread | Third Circuit Rejects Warrant Requirement for Cell Site Locator Information >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A chorus of amens to your last sentence (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by magster on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:08:10 PM EST
    Tormenting Chicago for the sake of ending his torment on the rest of the USA is an acceptable trade.  Of course, I don't live in Chicago...

    I sincerely doubt (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by weltec2 on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:38:30 PM EST
    that Rahm could get elected Mayor of Chicago at this point.

    There's no indication that if (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:48:22 PM EST
    Rahm departs for Chicago politics, the new WH COS will be anything close to a polar opposite - no reason to think anything will change much.  I mean, we're unhappy with Rahm, but I don't see any signs that Obama is - do you?

    Rahm has been doing the behind-the-scenes work for Obama - it's not like Obama's been held hostage to Rahm and now he might have the chance to do what he really wanted to do all along.  No, if Rahm goes, Obama will replace him with someone who will keep the whole thing going just as it has been.

    It's deck chairs, people, not a sea change; the iceberg is still there.

    Not Gonna Happen (none / 0) (#8)
    by msaroff on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 09:12:26 PM EST
    Here is my blog post covering both Rahm and Richie Daley:
    Daley is Leaving Because he is Preparing for an Indictment

    Mayor Richard M. "Richie" Daley has decided not to run for reelection as Mayor of Chicago.

    Basically, given his history, my guess is that he knows that a corruption  indictment is coming, and he wants to clear the deck in preparation.

    There are whispers that Rahm Emanuel might take a shot at running for mayor, but I don't think so.

    Rahm  has failed upward his entire political career, NAFTA, trying to kill  the 50 state strategy, running pro-war candidates who lost, etc.

    You can make money in Washington, and on Wall Street (Rahm worked at Wasserstein Perella and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)) based on connections, but if you are the Mayor of Chicago, you have to make things work.

    Just ask former Chicago Mayor Michael Bilandic.

    Rahm  might have the chops for the party politics, it is what he excels at,  but at making worthwhile things happen, he is simply incompetent, and if  he were to be mayor, he would be a one term mayor, and he would be  unelectable thereafter, at least in Illinois.

    But I've gotten off  topic.  My thesis is that Daley is resigning because US Attorney  Patrick Fitzgerald is getting to close for comfort.

    Mebbe, but in the end (none / 0) (#9)
    by brodie on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 09:21:54 PM EST
    I still see Obama as an ambitious pol who while not being quite the razor sharp intellect who's also firmly committed to progressive policies like some naive libs thought they were voting for in 2008, is still a pol firmly committed to staying in power for as long as constitutionally permitted.

    Given a bad midterm result for his party with a still sluggish economic recovery, he's probably capable of calculating, even on his own, that some more than superficial changes need to be made if he is to get that 2d term in 2012.  He'll also likely be getting serious party establishment pressure to make substantive changes in personnel and policy if things don't improve for Dems and the country in the near future.

    Not saying he'll be soon bringing in whoever the progressive equivalent of Rahm is, but I do think it's possible he might finally be forced to see the light about being more accommodating to the liberal wing if circumstances dictate it.

    Ideally, he needs a Ken O'Donnell -- smart, tough as nails, detail oriented and organized, solidly committed to liberal principles, experienced in the political system.  Unfortunately the O'Donnell types don't come along often, and I have no idea whom to recommend in 2010 for CoS.



    Who's Ken O'Donnell? (none / 0) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:12:02 PM EST
    Not a name I'm familiar with.

    One can only hope that whoever replaces Rahm at least won't be deliberately letting slip his/her open contempt for "the professional left," unions, etc, quite so publicly, nor pounding media circles for favorable profiles.

    If he runs for mayor in Chicago, I will take great pleasure in watching him crash and burn.


    I like the open contempt (none / 0) (#16)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:30:33 PM EST
    of course I would like it better if it actually motivated some folks more, but at least it's transparent {grin}

    JFK's CoS (none / 0) (#19)
    by brodie on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:58:12 PM EST
    Jeez, that's reaching back a ways (none / 0) (#20)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 06:59:26 AM EST
    In Mass. politics, he was known as "Kenny."

    We have to reach (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by brodie on Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 09:01:33 AM EST
    back a ways to find our last truly liberal prez, JFK, and good progressive WH governance is what I was referencing.  If you can name a really good, effective CoS for a Dem prez since then, someone I might have overlooked who's more recent in time and contemporary, who got the job done while still advocating liberal principles, I'll be happy to consider it.

    Not disagreeing with you even (none / 0) (#22)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 09:47:10 AM EST
    one iota.  Quite the contrary.

    Amazing timing (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 09:06:12 PM EST
    Daley retires just as Obama needs to get rid of Rahm.

    Wow, the stars must be in alignment..

    So conveeenient.

    Obama's needed to get (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:13:07 PM EST
    rid of Rahm since before he hired him.

    And really, I don't see Mayor Daley graciously stepping aside in order to help Obama graciously get rid of Rahm.  Not the way it works.


    This is Chicago (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Cream City on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:56:01 PM EST
    and the Prez and his CoS are Chicago pols, too.

    In Chicago politics, if you've got the goods on a guy, he's gone.  If he's lucky.  (The unlucky ones end up as freeway pillars.)

    And in Chicago politics, you've always got the goods on a guy.  Every guy.  It's the Chicago Way.


    Let's Start a Draft Rahm Fund (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by denise k on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:39:03 PM EST
    And I will make the first contribution!  I can't wait to see the back of his head as he climbs aboard a plane to ChiTown.  Please go, soon

    Ditto that... (none / 0) (#2)
    by maxcrat on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:13:35 PM EST
    Please, please, please dear goddess....

    Valerie Jarrett (none / 0) (#4)
    by itscookin on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:42:44 PM EST
    New Chief of Staff?

    Interesting possibility, (none / 0) (#6)
    by brodie on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 09:05:20 PM EST
    and she's a known Obama insider and loyalist.  She'd also be the first woman for that post, if I correctly recall my presidential chief of staff history.

    Dunno about the toughness part though.


    The West Wing did it (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 11:52:23 AM EST
    About 8 years ago ....  :-)

    That's a funny one! (none / 0) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:14:00 PM EST
    They usually try to be more clever and conceal themselves.

    Just like walking in lower (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:28:40 PM EST
    Manhattan, lol!~  ;)

    Glad to help. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Stromst on Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 01:34:30 PM EST
    ... so he can come back here and lose.